Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
In the Matter of the Petition of Cora Skinner, as Administratrix of the Estate of Elbert D. Parker, Deceased, Respondent, to Compel Sarah Parker, as Executrix of George O. Parker, Deceased, Appellant, to Account, 1904 — 180 N.Y. 515 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Petition of Cora Skinner, as Administratrix of the Estate of Elbert D. Parker, Deceased, Respondent, to Compel Sarah Parker, as Executrix of George O. Parker, Deceased, Appellant, to Account
180 N.Y. 515·New York Court of Appeals·1904·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of the Petition of Cora Skinner, as Administratrix of the Estate of Elbert D. Parker, Deceased, Respondent, to Compel Sarah Parker, as Executrix of George O. Parker, Deceased, Appellant, to Account.
Matter of Skinner, 81 App. Div. 449, affirmed.
(Argued December 1, 1904;
decided December 16, 1904.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, made March 13, 1903, which reversed a decree of the Oswego County Surrogate’s Court dismissing the petition herein.
J. T. McCaffrey and F. F. Hamilton for appellant.
Edwin J. Mizen and D. P. Morehouse for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, without costs, on the prevailing opinion below.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Haight and Martin, JJ. Bartlett and Vann, JJ., dissent on the opinion of Adams, P. J., below.